The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Different climatic envelopes among invasive populations may lead to underestimations of current and future biological invasions
Open accessAbstract
Aim We explore the impact of calibrating ecological niche models (ENMs) using (1) native range (NR) data versus (2) entire range (ER) data (native and invasive) on projections of current and future distributions of three Hieracium species. Location H. aurantiacum, H. murorum and H. pilosella are native to Europe and invasive in Australia, New Zealand and North America. Methods Differences among the native and invasive realized climatic niches of each species were quantified. Eight ENMs in BIOMOD were calibrated with (1) NR and (2) ER data. Current European, North American and Australian distributions were projected. Future Australian distributions were modelled using four climate change scenarios for 2030. Results The invasive climatic niche of H. murorum is primarily a subset of that expressed in its native range. Invasive populations of H. aurantiacum and H. pilosella occupy different climatic niches to those realized in their native ranges. Furthermore, geographically separate invasive populations of these two species have distinct climatic niches. ENMs calibrated on the realized niche of native regions projected smaller distributions than models incorporating data from species’ entire ranges, and failed to correctly predict many known invasive populations. Under future climate scenarios, projected distributions decreased by similar percentages, regardless of the data used to calibrate ENMs; however, the overall sizes of projected distributions varied substantially. Main conclusions This study provides quantitative evidence that invasive populations of Hieracium species can occur in areas with different climatic conditions than experienced in their native ranges. For these, and similar species, calibration of ENMs based on NR data only will misrepresent their potential invasive distribution. These errors will propagate when estimating climate change impacts. Thus, incorporating data from species’ entire distributions may result in a more thorough assessment of current and future ranges, and provides a closer approximation of the elusive fundamental niche.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G., & Jarvis, A. (2005) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.1276 · Cited by 19,825
Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., & Schapire, R. E. (2006) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 · Cited by 15,396
Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., III, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 · Cited by 9,280
Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data
Elith*, J., H. Graham*, C., P. Anderson, R., Dudík, M., Ferrier, S., Guisan, A., J. Hijmans, R., Huettmann, F., R. Leathwick, J., Lehmann, A., et al. (2006) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x · Cited by 9,088
Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology
Guisan, A., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2000) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(00)00354-9 · Cited by 7,359
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models
Guisan, A., & Thuiller, W. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x · Cited by 6,587
Self-citationEnsemble forecasting of species distributions
ARAUJO, M., & NEW, M. (2007) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.09.010 · Cited by 3,640
AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models
Lobo, J. M., Jiménez‐Valverde, A., & Real, R. (2008) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00358.x · Cited by 3,499
Special report on emissions scenarios
Nakićenović, N., Alcamo, J. M., Davis, G. F., de Vries, B. J. M., Fenhann, J. V., Gaffin, S. R., Gregory, K., Griibler, A., Jung, T. Y., Kram, T., et al. (2000) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 3,423
Cited by
Mainali, K. P., Warren, D. L., Dhileepan, K., McConnachie, A., Strathie, L., Hassan, G., Karki, D., Shrestha, B. B., & Parmesan, C. (2015) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13038 · Cited by 314
Metadata
- Authors
- Beaumont, L. J., Gallagher, R. V., Thuiller, W., Downey, P. O., Leishman, M. R., & Hughes, L.
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-04-09
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 409-420
- ISSN
- 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- OpenAlex
- W2043737264
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 18.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Different climatic envelopes among invasive populations may lead to underestimations of current and future biological invasions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00547.x
- The paper
- Beaumont, L. J., Gallagher, R. V., Thuiller, W., Downey, P. O., Leishman, M. R., & Hughes, L. (2009). Different climatic envelopes among invasive populations may lead to underestimations of current and future biological invasions. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00547.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.